War: A Book of Mormon Perspective

8/15/2019 War: A Book of Mormon Perspective

1/286

War: A Book of Mormon Perspective

How the War Chapters of the Book of Mormon Warn Against Wars of Aggression and

the Warfare State

by Kendal Anderson

Book design and layout copyright © Karen E. Hoover

Cover design copyright © 2014 by Tatiana Villa

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by

any means whatsoever without written permission from the author, except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Copyright © 2014 by Kendal Anderson


2/286


3/286

Dedicated to Jesus Christ — The Prince of Peace — who taught us to love our enemies

and petitioned His Father to forgive those who were at that very moment attempting to take

His life.


4/286

Table of Contents

Foreword

About the Author & Preface

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Chapter 2 – Principles of Defensive Warfare; America’s Two Just Wars

Chapter 3 – Wars of Aggression are Revolts Against Christ

Chapter 4 – Just War Theory and the Nephite Experience

Chapter 5 – Conscription versus Covenant

Chapter 6 – The Nationalistic Disease

Chapter 7 – War Collectivism

Chapter 8 – Economic Sanctions

Chapter 9 – Waging War on Civilians

Chapter 10 – Amalickiah and False Flag Operations

Chapter 11 – Betrayal at Yalta: Fruits of the Last “ Good War ”

Chapter 12 – Waging War on Ideologies: A Dangerous Delusion

Chapter 13 – A Misunderstood Hero

Appendix A: Selected Speeches and Writings Against the Warfare State

Section 1a – The Draft is Unconstitutional, by Daniel Webster

Section 2a – No Treason, by Lysander Spooner

Section 3a – The Conquest of the United States by Spain, by William Graham Sumner

Section 4a – War, Peace, and the State, by Murray N. Rothbard

Section 5a – The Glory of War, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Section 6a – Peace is the Father of all Things. by Ludwig Von Mises

Section 7a – Should a Christian Join the Military? by Laurence M. Vance

Appendix B: Selected Writings From Fellow Saints

Section 1b – Open Letter to Mormons Regarding Ron Paul: An LDS View of War, by Jeremy Ashton

Section 2b - What Is The Age Of Accountability For A Latter-day Saint Serviceman? by Rock

Waterman

Section 3b – Speaking Truth to Power: 9/11 — My Reflections Ten Years Later, by Ron Madson


5/286

Section 4b – The True Meaning of Peace, by Benjamin A. Thompson

Section 5b – War! by Tim Urling

Section 6b – Military Keynesianism, by Irven Hill

Section 7b – Truly Constitutional and Superior Homeland Security, by Collin Theis


6/286

Foreword

I am Anon Mous. We are Legion. We do not forget.

The best part about Anonymous and the reason that it's so successful is because it's

decentralized. Anonymous has all kinds — white knights, black hats, mad-hatters, crackers, trolling

net-scatters, and more. We are the conscious, the subconscious, and the unconscious. We are the

obscurity from the obscurity, yet there are those who rise out of such obscurity when needed in

order to reflect the light of Truth. That is needed now more than ever before.

We are less concerned with personal identities or institutions (especially centralized ones) and

more about ideas and works. Consider the ideas, the works, and the results. Many of us from around

the world have studied the contents of this book and have decided that they are so important that

we will support them forever, regardless of persecution. We invite everyone alive to also study the

information within this book as we have and make the same decision for yourselves because the

results of doing so would be the end of aggressive warfare and many other terrible things and would

lead to improved lives for everyone. This book is even a great benefit to those who are not religious.

Wouldn't you like to be able to educate Christians about what their God tells them to do concerning

these things and hold them to the Peaceful standard of the Golden Rule and the rest of their own

teachings rather than allowing them to engage in mockeries of Christianity through aggressive warfare such as the 'crusades'? These 'crusades' continue today in various ways, yet you could help to

end them and avoid much further suffering and death if the contents of this book are adhered to.

Are you not from the United States and/or maybe don't think that the contents of this book

apply to you and/or your loved-ones? If so, then you are dangerously wrong and are missing a

prime opportunity to improve your own life and that of all others. The United States effects all the

world and the things within this book are timeless and apply everywhere, not just within the United

States. Are you a member of a foreign nation, have resources, and would like the aggression,

deceiving, and other harm of the United States to end Peacefully? If so, then all you need to do is to

promote this book in its unaltered form among the People of the United States, who are still largely

ignorant of the information within. It is a fact that it only takes 3% of a population to accomplish

beneficial and enduring change on a very large scale, and the contents of this book are worthy of

100% of the support that can be offered because the results so greatly benefit everyone.


7/286

Do you perhaps believe that it's pointless or even harmful to get involved in the political

process at this point? It's understandable that you might feel that way, as many do, but not being

politically active yourself only gives more power to corruption and makes ever-worsening murderous

government-sponsored carnage inevitable. Instead, study and live by the contents of this book and

you will know exactly which politicians to elect based on their works, their public record, and their

platform rather than their party, power, attractiveness, and/or lies.

Share this information in any way that you know how as virally as possible. Be ready and able to

accurately discuss these things with your family, friends, co-workers, internet acquaintances, and

more. Ask politicians running for office what they think of this philosophy and use that to inform

your vote — though the ideal is for those who support these things to vote each-other into office and

implement them according to the People and Constitutional Rule of Law.

Expect us.


8/286

About the Author & Preface

My name is Kendal Anderson. I live in Ammon, Idaho, and run a small business in sprinklers,

lawn care, and pest control. I have a beautiful family consisting of my wife Christy, my son Caleb,

and my step-son Kadeon. Although I don’t have a college degree, I have a strange affinity for

reading books that most would consider boring. For the last 12 years or so, I have embarked on a

journey of independent study that has culminated in the writing of this book, which is the first of

what I hope will be more. My journey began with a spiritual study, evolved into a more secular

approach, and ended up being a synthesis of the two. I have been trying for the last five years to

reconcile my Mormon theology with secular libertarianism. This endeavor became much easier

when I put aside the cultural traditions that have crept into Mormonism over the past 200 years and

decided to look to the scriptures instead. What I gleaned from this process is that the Book of

Mormon is full of teachings that coincide with the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression. This

non-aggression axiom is not unlike the Savior’s own teachings in the New Testament that we have

aptly named 'the Golden Rule'.

The first book I read that really inaugurated my intellectual journey was W. Cleon Skousen’s The

Naked Communist. As a young man of 23, I shirked my collegiate studies — which were riddled with

establishment pap — in favor of used books by obscure men that I felt taught me real truth.

Frederick Bastiat’s The Law is another that comes to mind. At about the same time, I discovered H.

Verlan Andersen’s work— an LDS author and former BYU professor. His magnum opus, Many Are

Called, But Few Are Chosen, is a must-read for Latter-day Saints who are seeking to understand the

relationship between the Gospel and liberty. These and other books helped to prepare me for what

would come next and much later. About five years ago, I discovered the Mises Institute, which is one

of the largest libertarian think-tanks in the world, or at least commensurate with the other great like-

minded think-tanks such as the Cato and Independent Institutes. Working as a laborer in my father’s

cabinet shop, I purchased my first IPod and downloaded endless hours of libertarian lectures oneconomics, politics, war, and history. Needless to say, the hours of mindless labor passed by a much

greater velocity than they had before when I was forced to listen to Spanish and Country music

blaring through a loud speaker.

I was introduced to men like Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Lew

Rockwell, Walter Block, Robert Higgs, John Denson, Tom Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, and Bob


9/286

Murphy. These men were and are echoing ideas that were laid down in the Book of Mormon and

taught here on the American continent millennia ago. Many of these men are not religious at all but

are in tune with principles that the Lord Himself wanted recorded by a fallen people who speak to

us from the dust. These principles can be summarized into the following categories; free markets,

voluntary charity, pacifism, just war, natural rights, and the evils of bloated government. I chose to

write about just war because I have seen so many of my fellow Saints buy into the jingoistic lies

propagated by the government. So many who have the Book of Mormon in hand capitulate to the

worship of the State, it’s military and police, it’s foreign adventures, it’s sanctions, and it’s insatiable

appetite to be the world’s police.

With this in mind, I decided to search deep within the war chapters of the Book of Mormon to

see just what kind of message Mormon was attempting to portray by including twenty- plus chapters

about a war between the Nephites and the Lamanites. I didn’t casually study these chapters; instead,they consumed me for several months. I would listen to them over and over again in attempts to

dissect every morsel of information. Why — I would ask myself — did the Lord want us to know

these things? Why did Mormon say that if all men were like unto Captain Moroni then the devil

would lose his power? What does Captain Moroni’s Title of Liberty, or Amalickiah’s coup, or

Pahoran’s stand against the kingmen, have to do with Christianity? Why did the righteous Nephites

never go into the lands of the enemy to attack? And why did Mormon resign from his position of

military commander when his people desired to go into Lamanite lands and exact vengeance on

them by the sword? I attempt to answer these and other questions within this book.

There are also other important reasons that I wrote this book. First and foremost, I love liberty.

I think that war is ugly, reprehensible, and that it brings out the worst in people and nations. War is

the worst crime committed by governments because murder is far worse than stealing or enslaving.

And war-like nationalism is perhaps the easiest way for governments to deceive their constituents.

On a more personal level, I decided to engage in this work because of a strong spiritual prompting

that moved me to action. I remember skipping the last hour of church one day (Priesthood

meeting) — a common practice of mine — and retiring home to my couch to engage in my Sundaystudy of something a little more interesting than regurgitated conference talks. As I sat pondering

the Book of Mormon, an overwhelming feeling came over me that I should write a book using the

ancient record as the general theme. At first, I began writing on the general subject of liberty, but I

found this to be exhausting, overwhelming, and entirely too vague. After several months and 100

pages of manuscript, I changed the theme to just warfare. This more specific topic allowed me to


10/286

write with greater ease and more purpose. I discovered Doctrine and Covenants Section 98 — a

revelation given to Joseph Smith about when the Lord justifies war, which was given in response to

the persecution of the early Saints by the Missourians.

D&C 98 correlated with the message of Captain Moroni’s war of defense against the

Lamanites, as well as many preceding and contemporary libertarian theorists on just war. I

discovered the writings of J. Reuben Clark — a constitutional scholar who was called to the First

Presidency after years of inactivity and working on Sunday. He condemned the dropping of the

atomic bombs on Japan in a general conference of 1946 and referred to the incident as “fiendish

butchery.” Subsequently, I discovered the First Presidency message of 1945 that condemned

conscription. I was finding that secular and spiritual sources were coming together to witness to the

truthfulness of the message of Peace contained within the ancient records of the Nephites.

Finally, the real value that has come from my journey throughout this work is a deeperappreciation for the Savior’s supernal pacifism. If there is anything that I hope that this book

portrays to my fellow Saints, it’s that Jesus would never condone us in our “kill ‘em all in the name

of ‘Merica” mentality, or wars of aggression, so-called 'nation building' that is actually imperial

mercantilism, our torture, and/or any attacks on human rights. The Lord teaches that the true

Christian way is to love our enemies, even while they are in the very act of crucifying us, as the

Prince of Peace so perfectly demonstrated.


11/286

Chapter 1

Introduction

Peace is built into us. We don’t naturally want war. The Light of Christ (that which helps us to

discern between right and wrong) speaks Peace to our souls. We all possess an innate pacifism that

resonates, a priori, the knowledge that war is wrong, inhumane, degenerate, and abhorrent. Yet, our

respective governments tell us that war is noble, honorable, and necessary to preserve freedom,

security, and peace. How, then, are we to know if the cause of war is just and if our government is

telling the truth? In this age of mass brainwashing, government-controlled media, and the unlimited

amount of information available on the internet, it is difficult to distinguish between right and

wrong, truth and error. Many of us have been conditioned to receive our information directly from

government or government-approved sources such as Fox News, CNN, and CNBC, while others

prefer the free market of ideas found online. There are so many voices out there declaring so many

variations of doctrine that it has become extremely difficult to ascertain true principles of right and

wrong.

It seems as though humanity is struggling for answers, especially in regard to the proper use of

violence against so – called enemies/criminals/terrorists, etc . Is it truly ethical to seek out and destroy

potential aggressors before they have a chance to “get” us? Is this method of preemptively rootingout evil justified from a normative, moral perspective? Or, do those who support “taking out” our

enemies before they can cause harm actually make murderers of themselves instead? I wrote this

book to help bring clarity to those who are struggling for answers to questions such as these. I

believe that the principles and axioms laid down in Christendom give us a proper guide in regard to

when it is righteous to wage war. Although many nations and armies have killed collectively in the

name of Christ, I believe those choices to be gross misrepresentations of the doctrines of the

Master. Jesus taught the Golden Rule, which admonishes us to treat others as we wish to be treated

(Luke 6:31). This principle is not unlike the non-aggression axiom of libertarian philosophy, which is

defined in the following way by libertarian Walter Block:

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism.

It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided

only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately


12/286

owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to

manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus,

there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, and government

regulation of the economy, etc.1

When the Golden Rule and the non-aggression axiom are applied to warfare, it becomes

evident that preemptive war is illegitimate and illogical. To illustrate the point, we will consider that

person A has become suspicious of their next-door neighbor — person B — whom person A thinks is

harboring weapons that might be dangerous to A's family and possibly to the rest of the

neighborhood. Person A sends spies to collect intelligence about B and finds that person B is indeed

very well armed. However, A has no proof that person B intends to use these resources maliciously

against others. For all person A knows, person B may only wish to stockpile such weapons as a

precaution against the potential aggression of others. Regardless of B’s intentions, A holds a

meeting with the rest of the neighborhood and they determine through a democratic vote that B is a

dangerous threat and needs to be removed before person B “attacks” someone. Although there have

not yet been any victims of person B’s alleged malevolent thought crimes, the neighborhood militia

moves in on B’s premises and stealthily apprehends then executes person B without a trial or any

due process of law.

Most people who hear this story would agree that person A was out of line and indeed the true

aggressor; still, how many would decry governments and nations for doing the same thing? SaddamHussein never committed an act of violence against the United States, yet the government used the

above rationale to “take him out before he got us.” Even if he had been harboring weapons of mass

destruction as alleged, he had not used them against Americans, and if it is illegitimate to even

possess such weapons (as it can be argued from a libertarian perspective) then the American

government and others also should have been disarmed from possessing such weapons. However,

Iraq was preemptively attacked, Saddam ousted, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were

sacrificed for the “greater good.” I argue in this book that preemption is not the Lord’s way, and that

true followers of Christ are only justified in the use of violence when they and their families are

actually under attack by aggressors or invaders. Thus, the victims of such crimes are vindicated in

fighting to preserve their lives, families, religion, lands, property, and other inalienable rights.

Fighting for any other reason violates the Golden Rule and the non-aggression axiom, as well as the

foundational tenets of Christianity.


13/286

The Lord has truly given us a handbook that lays out the rules of righteous warfare. This

handbook was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. and published in 1830 as “ Another Testament of Jesus

Christ” and is also known as the Book of Mormon . Named after the prophet/historian Mormon —

who compiled a thousand years of history — this book details an account of an ancient people of

Hebrew descent who inhabited the American continent. Mormon gives us a history of their

preaching, prophesying, contentions, wars, and ultimate destruction. In the heart of the book, there

are several chapters which deal with a major war between two groups known as the Nephites and

the Lamanites. The history of this war clearly distinguishes that the Lamanites were the aggressors

and lays out the proper war protocol for Christians who find themselves under attack. The Nephites

only fought to preserve their families, lands, properties, and religion, and in conducting the war

abstained from conscription to raise armies or compulsive taxation to fund the war. The Nephites

never used torture on Lamanite prisoners and even taught them the Gospel and set them free afterthe war, allowing many of them to remain among the Nephites where they enjoyed more Liberty

than the Lamanite government allowed. Mormon also regrettably informs us that several hundred

years later — during his own day — the Nephites devolved toward a more aggressive foreign policy

which eventually led to their demise. When these teachings are applied to our modern day, it

becomes obvious that we are falling into the same trap that our Nephite progenitors fell victim to.

As the saying goes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I realize that many who come across this work may not believe in the literal reality of the

Nephite civilization existing on the American continent. To those, I offer an invitation to consider

the principles of just war found within the Book of Mormon as works of literary genius that are

concomitant with just war theory and the libertarian principle of non-aggression. Even if the Book

of Mormon were a fable, the axioms found within its pages are of paramount importance in regards

to personal liberty. To those who believe it to be an authentic record of Israelite history, I would

offer an in vitation to consider that the Lord’s rules of warfare are a moral imperative that must be

adhered to if one truly desires to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would submit that it is

inconsistent with the religion that Joseph Smith, Jr. restored for any to parrot the official worldlypolicy of preemption while simultaneously professing to be a disciple of Christ. Remember; Jesus

taught us to love our enemies, not to kill them all in the name of national 'security'.

That said, I would invite all to cast off the chains of cognitive dissonance and read my book. It

is not just written to LDS Christians or other Christians exclusively, but is extended to all

audiences — including atheists, deists, agnostics, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. All will find


14/286

common ground in the message of Peace contained within these pages. For those who would

dismiss my book based solely on the belief that it is seemingly associated with the 'Mormon church',

I would offer the following disclaimer: This book has no official affiliation with the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints and there are many within that religion who would strongly disagree with

the perspectives shared herein — even among its leadership. In fact, the Book of Mormon is a work

independent of any religion much like the Holy Bible , and I believe that the message contained within

its pages is intended for all people, especially that its declaration of Christian Peace is universal and

ubiquitous.

Although there is quite a bit of American history included in this work, the focus is centered on

principles of right and wrong. Using a combination of conventional history and lessons from the

Book of Mormon , I strive to point out the fallacies of the modern warfare state. Contrary to the

opinions of many readers and students, it is fact that the Book of Mormon teaches non-aggression. This assertion may seem strange in spite of the many wars and contentions included in the narrative

of the book — however, when it is studied in context, one can conclude that the Lord only condones

defensive warfare. In fact, the Lord has a very strict set of rules that must be followed before an

individual or group is morally justified in the use of violence. Not surprisingly, these rules

corroborate with the principles of just war theory and natural law laid down by the great

philosophers of the past. I endeavor to point out in this book the evils of preemptive war, military

conscription, jingoistic nationalism, war collectivism, economic sanctions, and perhaps the most

pernicious evil — the waging of war against innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, the government has managed to convince the majority of the American people

that the above actions are moral and just, and somehow prerequisite to preserving our nation’s

freedom. Such an argument (that killing innocents in the name of God, family, and/or country

makes us freer) is most absurd. The reader will discover as they peruse this book that each category

of state-sponsored evil is broken down to its most logical conclusion, that: preemptive war is

unprovoked violence, military conscription is slavery, jingoistic nationalism is abstract hatred, war

collectivism is just another excuse to increase economic regulation and raise taxes, economicsanctions deprive innocents of food and medicine, and civilian warfare equals mass-murder and

genocide. Government not only expects its citizens to accept these absurdities, it demands total

obedience and allegiance from them. The truth is that no person owes the government anything , for

its very existence is rationally impossible without the people. By nature, it is a parasitic entity that


15/286

cannot continue without a host. It does not and cannot produce anything, and it cannot transfer the

slightest modicum of wealth without first extracting it from its productive citizenry.

To say that we owe the government our obedience, our allegiance, our wealth, and even our

lives is like saying that we owe the same to a common highway robber that plunders us “for our own

good” over and over and over again, and then declares that we are “safer” because of our

“privilege” of being robbed. Lysander Spooner — a great libertarian philosopher of the 19th

century — was profoundly correct when he referred to government as being operated by “a secret

band of robbers and murderers.” This statement is inherently true of all governments, for they rob

collectively through taxation and they murder collectively through aggressive warfare. Despite the

fact that these are gross violations of the 6th and 8th commandments, the masses continue to

capitulate to the State’s antics because they feel that dissent would be unpatriotic. They forget

through all the jingoistic hype that government is not some abstract, big-brother-like, faceless entity,but is merely a small group of individuals who have managed to slip into positions of power. This

“secret band of robbers and murderers” hires intellectuals who spend more time studying

propaganda techniques than the average person spends learning to read. The result of such systems

is collective acquiescence to an official state agenda which usually enriches a few at the expense of

the many. The obedient masses are told that the State does these things for the “good and safety of

society.”

The Book of Mormon teaches the opposite view: that we are individuals, we act for ourselves, our

rights are granted by our Creator, true patriotism is obedience to God, that most men abuse power,

just wars are always defensive, preemptive wars are always initiated by ambitious men, armies should

be voluntary, war taxation is evil, collective hatred is of the devil, free trade leads to prosperity,

flattery (propaganda) is used to start wars, civilians are to be left alone during battle, and that the

word of God is more powerful than the sword. That the commandment to love God and our

neighbor transcends all nations, countries, cities, and states, and that God is not so much concerned

with imaginary lines defining countries as He is with how we treat our brothers and sisters —

encompassing all of mankind. This is the message I hope to portray in this book; one which liftsindividual liberty above the false “good” of collective acquiescence to any unrighteous government

action. This is a message reaching out to all people who inhabit this world, regardless of race,

religion, or nationality — admonishing all of us to love our enemies as well as our neighbors. A

message promulgated by the Savior Himself, which pleads with mankind to stop murdering and to

begin truly loving each-other instead.


16/286

Chapter One Notes and Sources

1. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.htmlhttp://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.htmlhttp://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html


17/286

Chapter 2

Principles of Defensive Warfare; America’s Two Just Wars

In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.-Captain Moroni

War is perhaps the most reprehensible atrocity ever perpetuated upon mankind. It encapsulates

all of the most egregious crimes, darkest horrors, unrestrained passions, and merciless tyrannies of

ambitious people. In the name of God, country, and patriotism conscripted armies have engaged in

the mass slaughter of men, women, and children while being convinced that the cause is just. The

purpose of this book is to debunk the romanticism surrounding the philosophy of aggressive

warfare, to set forth the Christian principles of defensive warfare as expounded in the Book of

Mormon , and to expose war for what it really is; mass murder on a grand scale. The reader should

keep in mind throughout this study that war has been primarily carried out by a small ruling

minority; worldly government. This entity uses the power of intellectuals to convince others to rally

behind a “just” cause by sending their children to die for the supposed liberty of other nations, or

“to protect our freedom” at home. If establishment intellectuals fail in their endeavors then the

power of conscription is invoked (as it was during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam)

to coerce them into fighting. Such involuntary servitude is wrong, a violation of the Constitution,and a contradiction of the Lord's statement that, “it is not right that any man should be in bondage

one to another.”1

The reason why wars are perpetuated is explained to us through the scriptures in a warning

given by Joseph Smith, Jr., wherein he states; “it is the disposition of almost all men, as soon as they

get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous

dominion.”2 When one is placed at the head of government, it is almost universally inevitable that

they will exercise such compulsion on their people. The lust for power and gain can envelope those

in authority with an insatiable desire to exercise unrighteous dominion over nations, peoples, and

territories — leading to wars of expansionism and empire. Unfortunately, most wars are fought over

this very thing and yet so few are waged purely for the purpose of defense as was done by the

Christians recorded within the Book of Mormon — defensive warfare to “preserve their rights and their

privileges, yea, and also their liberty, that they might worship God according to their desires.”3


18/286

To help us avoid confusion and/or deception, the Lord has given us a standard for defensive

warfare in the Doctrine and Covenants, and an actual history of a war fought by the Nephites

against a dictatorial maniac named Amalickiah. When one considers these principles revealed to

Joseph Smith, Jr. and studies them with an open mind, it becomes evident that our own nation has

not followed the Lord's standard of defensive warfare and is in fact under condemnation for most

of the wars it has engaged in. These principles can be found in the 98th Section of the Doctrine and

Covenants and will be quoted at length here as follows:

Now I speak unto you concerning your families — if men will smite you, or

your families once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek

revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted

unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. And again, if your enemy

shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it

patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold. And again, if he shall smite you the

third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;

and these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall

not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my

vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall warn him

in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your

children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come

upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth

generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands. And if thou wilt spare

him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy

children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy

is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified;

if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine

hands and thou art justified.

Author's interjection: The reader should be picking up the hint by now that war — to the Lord — is the

absolute last resort and should only be engaged in after bearing patiently three “smitings” from a potential

enemy. There also needs to be a clear and present danger, or as the Lord has stated it; if “thy life is

endangered . . . “ This is congruent with the ancient “ Just War” philosophy of the Romans (before they

became an aggressive empire) that war should only be engaged in if your home is being attacked. The

Nephites shared this philosophy as evidenced by the following statement that they were “taught… never to


19/286

give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve

their lives.”4

Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph,

and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out

unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord,

commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against

them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the

third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; Then I, the Lord,

would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle

against that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles andtheir children’s battles, and their children’s children, until they had avenged

themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an

ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.5

So we learn from these verses that the Lord gave this law to his ancients and we have to assume

that this includes Moses and Joshua. However, we read in the Old Testament of Israelites destroying

entire civilizations — including women and children. Would the Lord contradict his own law? The

answer lies in the authenticity of the Biblical translation. We know the Book of Mormon to be the

pure translation of the Nephite record and there is not one single instance wherein the Lord

commands a Nephite prophet to annihilate an entire nation, or to even engage in a preemptive

attack on their enemies. During the righteous times, and specifically under Captain Moroni, the

Nephites waged only defensive war and were “compelled reluctantly to contend with their

brethren, the Lamanites.”6 They were also “sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because

they did not delight in the shedding of blood.7 When Captain Helaman asked the two-thousand

stripling warriors if they would battle against the Lamanites in order to help defend Antipus, they

replied —” we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone.”8 As we shall see, Captain

Moroni was obedient to the principles outlined in D&C 98, and showed his faith in God by asking a

prophet to pray for guidance — for he, “knowing of the prophecies of Alma, sent certain men unto

him, desiring of him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should

go to defend themselves against the Lamanites.”9


20/286

When this account is compared to the record of the Israelites, it is strikingly dissimilar. For

instance, in Numbers 31 the Lord supposedly commands Moses to send 12,000 warriors to destroy

the Midianites and burn all their cities. After this was done, they “took all the spoil, and all the prey,

both of men and of beasts.”10 As for the women and children Moses then commanded them to

“therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying

with him.”11 Here we have the Israelites committing an overt act of aggression against the

Midianites; burning their cities, taking the spoils, and killing men, women, and children. Is this not a

violation of the commandments “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal?” There are several

accounts of this type of warfare in the Old Testament that have to do with the Israelite journey into

the Promised Land. It is this author’s opinion that one of the two following things is true; either

these accounts are mistranslations, or there were very special circumstances approved of by the Lord

which justified the Israelites in their actions. The former is more probable, but even if the latter were the case the Nephite example is the one that applies to America today. Christians (Mormon or

otherwise) who cite Israelite accounts as pretext or prescription for preemptively attacking any

foreign nation and/or conducting aggressive warfare are not justified.

Turning to the account of the Nephite war in the Book of Alma, we learn of the extenuating

circumstances which justified the Nephites in waging defensive war. The Zoramites and Amalekites

had dissented, or defected over to the Lamanites, and had come into the land of the Nephites to

wage war. Moroni — only 25 years old when given command of the Nephite army —”knew the

intention of the Lamanites, that it was their intention to destroy their brethren, or to subject them

and bring them into bondage that they might establish a kingdom unto themselves over all the

land.”12 Mormon, as he relates this history, explains that the Nephites were indeed following the

Lord’s rules:

Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not

fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their

liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship

and their church. And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they

owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers,

that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall

not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. And again, the Lord

has said: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this


21/286

cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and

their families, and their lands, their county, and their rights, and their religion13

It is important to note that the first and second offenses were committed by the Lamanites and

both preemptive attacks were facilitated by Nephite dissenters who were lusting for kingship and

power. The chief of these — Amlici — was after the order of the Nehors (meaning antichrist), and he

sought to establish himself as a king so he could destroy the religious freedom of the people. Just

four years prior, king Mosiah had established the reign of the judges, which resulted in a constitutional

republic much like the United States of America14. This system also resembled the ancient Israelite

system of judges that Moses and his father-in-law — Jethro — established prior to their entering the

land of Canaan15. Needless to say, the Nephite people weren’t going to let Amlici pull off a coup

after they had just been granted their political freedom. A vote was held through which “the voice

of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made a king over the people.”16 He then

proceeded to stir up the hearts of those who followed him and after they consecrated him to be

their king they took up arms against the people of Nephi. Alma, the chief judge and governor of

the people, went up at the head of the Nephite armies (true leadership behavior forsaken by modern

executives) as they defended themselves against the Amlicites. Thousands were slain on both sides,

and as the Amlicites retreated Alma sent spies to watch them. The next day they returned and

related the terrifying news that the Amlicites had joined with the Lamanites. Being greatly

outnumbered, the Nephites were assaulted by the Lamanites and Amlicites; however, “the Nephites

being strengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver

them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen

them, and the Lamanites and the Amlicites did fall before them.”17

Alma contends face to face with Amlici, slays him, and then subsequently contends with the

king of the Lamanites — forcing his retreat. In fact, the whole army of the Lamanites — exceedingly

more numerous than the Nephites —was defeated and driven back, fulfilling the Lord’s promises

that he would fight their battles for them if they followed His rules of warfare. The second offense

came when Zerahemnah came against the Nephites thirteen years later, with the intent “that he

might gain power over the Nephites by bringing them into bondage.”18 He was immediately

defeated, and even scalped by Moroni’s army and compelled to enter into a covenant of peace or be

destroyed19. The Lamanites returned to their own land and there was peace until Amalickiah

appeared on the scene. Amalickiah was a Nephite by birth who dissented just shortly after Helaman


22/286

established the church again following the wars and dissensions of the Lamanites. He was a cunning

man and used much flattery to convince those around him, especially the lower judges of the land,

that if they supported him in his quest for kingship then “he would make them rulers over the

people.”20 He drew many away from the church by his “flatteries,” leading them to “seek to destroy

the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them.”21

He fled with his followers to the wilderness and when Moroni cut his men off, Amalickiah took a

small number who had not been captured and defected to the Lamanites. He used treachery and

murder to assassinate the king of the Lamanites in a classic coup d’etat, establishing himself as

dictator.22 He then launched a massive military campaign against the Nephites and swore to drink

the blood of Moroni. It was these precarious circumstances that compelled the Nephites to wage

defensive warfare against a sycophantic, megalomaniacal tyrant.

Glenn L Pearson and Reid E. Bankhead — two former BYU professors who wrote one of thebest Book of Mormon study guides in existence — have a section on defensive war. They document the

plain and precious clarity that the Book of Mormon lays down in regard to the causes of war and what

qualifies as righteous participation in them. They are the following:

1. It is the result of the wickedness of fallen men in a fallen world.

2. It always is started by the evil designs of power-hungry totalitarians.

3. Good men and good nations should never go to war except to defend their

liberty, their lives, their families, and their property.23

There is another condition that exists when it is morally justifiable to engage in war: the case of

secession from a mother state. The proper protocol here is to engage in civil disobedience or

intellectual dissonance when a central governing authority is destroying rights and to continue such

action until that authority relents or declares war on its subjects. According to the Lord’s counsel, we

are only required to obey the laws of governments that honor our inalienable rights. Joseph Smith, Jr.

declared the following :

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective

governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable

rights by the laws of such governments…24


23/286

This counsel from Joseph Smith, Jr. implies that our obedience to government is conditional

upon how well that government protects our natural rights. If a state becomes rogue, violating its

bounds by attacking its citizens' basic rights of free speech, free press, freedom of religion,

economic freedom, et al , then the people of that state are justified in initiating a revolution. This is

acceptable to God because when government becomes tyrannical and begins to destroy individual

liberty then it interferes with God’s plan of free agency. As this is God’s work and glory, one can

understand the disdain the Creator has for governments that work to infringe upon individual

agency, which is God’s greatest gift to His children. Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, qualifies the

American Revolution by prophesying that the Lord would not only vindicate the colonists in their

secession from Britain, but that he would also help them win the war. This humble prophet — when

just a boy at sixteen years of age — saw this in the following vision:

And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the

land of promise (America)… And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon

the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance . . . I,

Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble

themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. And I

beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon

the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with

them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together

against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of

captivity were delivered out of the hands of all other nations.25

Why did the British monarch King George III declare war on the colonies? It was because of

their civil disobedience and intolerance toward abuses from the king. Thomas Jefferson listed 27 of

these abuses in the Declaration of Independence. Some of the most invasive include: keeping

standing armies during peacetime, giving the military power over the civil power, forced quartering

of British troops while protecting them with mock trials in cases of murder, trade embargos,imposing taxes without consent, deprivation of trial by jury, suspending the legislatures of the state

governments, and sending “swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”25

Much like the Nephites under the command of Alma, the colonists were greatly outnumbered and

outgunned by their British counterparts. However, unlike the British, their cause was just. They were

not fighting for monarchy, nor for power as the Lamanites had — they fought to preserve their


24/286

liberty, rights, lands, and families. It is evident that God preserved our forefathers during many of

the various battles of the Revolution. Just by examining the life of George Washington we find

extraordinary Divine Providence. When 23 years old, he survived two horses being shot out from

under him in one battle during the French and Indian War, which took place at Fort Duquesne near

Pittsburgh. He was also deathly ill during the melee and displayed unrelenting valor in rallying the

troops after General Braddock was fatally wounded. After retiring for the night, he found bullet

fragments in his coat and wig. About twenty years later, he would lead the colonial army to

eventually defeat the British, literally fulfilling the prophecy of Nephi. Henry B. Carrington — a

historian — documents twenty-two instances of divine intervention during the Revolutionary War.

He had this to say about the war in general:

The war for American independence was marked by many critical events,

which were beyond human control or remedy. Some of these changed the relations

of contending armies in a single night. More than once, a few hours of unexpected

rain, wind or fog, were enough to assure lasting results. These determining events,

because belonging to the sphere and operation of physical laws, are not beyond the

recognition of nature’s Master. They testify very clearly at least, the absolute

uncertainty of the best human plans, whether for peace or war, and the value of the

promptness, which seizes every opportunity as it passes, and thus gives shape to the

material issues, which are ripe for solution.26

The Book of Mormon was written for our day. We can draw comparisons between the types of

wars waged during those times and those we have in the present. What may come as a shock to

many Christians, Latter-day Saints, and Americans in general is that only two of America’s wars have

been constitutional, moral, and justified from a Book of Mormon perspective. We have just discussed

the first of these, and the second is the subject of much controversy and debate. It is the Civil War,

and our contention here is that only the Southern position was justified. The notion of a civil war

implies that both sides are struggling for power, but in the American case it was a war of secession . Wehave already established that the American Revolution was also a war of secession from England.

Murray Rothbard — one of the most influential libertarain thinkers of the 20th Century — explains

the similarities between the two wars as follows:


25/286

In 1861, the Southern states, believing correctly that their cherished institutions

were under grave threat and assault from the federal government, decided to

exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to “secede”

from that Union. The separate Southern states then exercised their contractual right

as sovereign republics to come together in another confederation, the Confederate

States of America. If the American Revolutionary War was just, then it follows as

the night the day that the Southern cause, the War for Southern Independence, was

just, and for the same reason: casting off the “political bonds” that connected the

two peoples. In neither case was this decision made for “light or transient causes.”

And in both cases, the courageous seceders pledged to each-other “their lives, their

fortunes, and their sacred honor.27

This, of course, is not the history that is preached from the pulpits of public schools — because,unfortunately, the winners of wars always get to write the history and establishment historians would

have us believe that the war was fought over slavery and saving the so-called “Union”— whatever

that is. Our goal here is simply to tell the truth, and there is much more to this story than most

Americans have been taught. Our story begins in South Carolina in the year 1828. In this year, a

tariff — which Southerners called the Tariff of Abominations — was passed in the legislature, raising

the tariff rate substantially. This tariff was targeted at European goods that were being imported

into the South. The Southern economy was mostly agrarian which meant that Southerner’s had to

purchase industrial goods from either Northern or European sources. Up until that time, the goods

coming from Europe were cheaper than those coming from Northern industry. This tariff forced

the South into an ultimatum; either pay a high tax on imported goods or pay a high price for

Northern goods. The South viewed this tariff for what it really was — legalized plunder that led to

the rebellion of South Carolina and the idea of nullification (a state’s right to nullify federal laws

deemed unconstitutional). John C. Calhoun — vice-president under Andrew Jackson during the

1830s — strongly opposed the tariff and eventually resigned over it. South Carolina endeavored to

nullify the tariff legislation and was able to negotiate a reduction in the rate. However, the damage toSouthern prosperity sowed the seeds of eventual secession.

Abraham Lincoln came onto the scene in 1861. He was a proponent of three things that tear at

the root of individual freedom; large public works projects (such as subsidized railroads), a national

bank, and a high protective tariff.28 Lincoln was a Republican who supported protectionism , which is

another name for corporate welfare for big business. He was of a type of person like Alexander


26/286

Hamilton or Henry Clay, who championed the archaic economic system of British mercantilism.

Edgar Lee Masters — a famous playwright who wrote one of the first books criticizing Lincoln —

gives a telling definition of mercantilism:

Henry Clay was the champion of that political system, which doles favors to

the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His

system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises. He was the

beloved son of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his

superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make

profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to

the creation of a party that had no platform to announce because its principles were

plunder and nothing else.29

The tariff imposed upon the South by Lincoln and the Republican Party was a mercantilist

policy which benefitted Northern industry at the expense of the Southern economy. This was only a

scheme for government to abolish competition by fiat and which destroyed the idea (found within

the Book of Mormon ) that “every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land.”30 Not

only was Lincoln in full support of the tariff, he was willing to use violence to enforce it. He also

plainly articulated the fact that slavery was something he did not care to meddle with. Quoting from

his first inaugural address we read:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of

slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I

have no inclination to do so.31

He also made a direct verbal threat of violence to those Southern states that refused to pay the

tariff :

In doing this (defending the Union) there needs to be no bloodshed or

violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority.

The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property,

and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but


27/286

beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no

using of force against, or among the people anywhere.32

The duties and imposts mentioned here are another name for excise taxes, or tariffs. What

Lincoln is essentially saying is that if the Southern states paid the tariff then there would be no

invasion or use of force. This was a direct threat of aggression against states that would not comply

with an unjust tax. How ironic that those who protested King George during the Boston Tea Party

are heralded by historians, yet Southerners who displayed patriotic valor in doing virtually the same

thing are not even mentioned in the history books except as despicable slave owners. Can it not be

said that the people of the Southern states were just as heroic in their endeavors to stand up to the

Republican Party and its high protective tariff ? Another point that should be examined is Lincoln’s

definition of the so-called Union. He made the outrageous and nonsensical claim that the Union

was older than the Constitution, and therefore that the states were subject to it. Quoting again from

his first inaugural address:

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal

contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the

Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of

Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteenStates expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of

Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for

ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was “to form a more perfect union….It

follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get

out of the Union, — that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and

that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United

States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.33

In reality, there is no such thing as this perpetua l Union referred to by Lincoln. This loaded term

signifies a geographical abstraction that only exists as a perception of a collective people or society.

However, to the founding generation this rationale would be a heresy, for they viewed the United

States as not one people, but as diversified individuals of thirteen independent states. If one studies

the original meaning of how the Framer’s viewed the Union and Constitution, one can discern the


28/286

inherent fraud associated with such a claim. To Lincoln, the Union was only a means to an end, and

that end was the confiscation of Southern wealth through taxation. His assertion that the Union is

older than the Constitution is mythical nonsense and blather. The truth is that, prior to the

ratification of the Constitution, the thirteen colonies were laying tariffs on goods crossing state lines,

requiring travelers to go through customs, and inflating their own separate currencies. The colonies

were anything but unified, but rather were acting like thirteen independent sovereign nations. Also,

his claim that “no state … can lawfully get out of the Union” has no validity according to how the

people viewed the Constitution at that time. In fact, the thirteen colonies came together voluntarily

and formed a compact, which is tantamount to a contract entered into by several parties working

toward a common goal. The states came together and delegated certain powers to the federal

government, but they did not cede any powers. The absolute power was retained by the people, not

the whole people, but the individual people of the sovereign states. St. George Tucker, one of thefirst scholars to write a commentary on the Constitution, reflects the general sentiment at the time in

his Views of the Constitution of the United States:

…It is a compact by which the federal government is bound to the several

states, and to every citizen of the United States. Although the federal government

can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to the compact made anterior to

its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that

compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, andthe citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights,

but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can

possess no legitimate power, but such as is absolutely necessary for the performance

of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the

exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose,

than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its

proper limits, and violates the public trust.34

It was also understood, and reiterated by Jefferson and Madison’s Virginia and Kentucky

Resolutions, that a state could voluntarily and peacefully leave the Union (terminate the contract) at

any time if the federal government passed unconstitutional laws. At the very least they could nullify

such laws, as South Carolina attempted to do in 1832, and if further aggression was used it was


29/286

universally understood that states could peacefully secede. Quoting from the Kentucky Resolutions

we read:

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are

not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government;

but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States

and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special

purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each

State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are

unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a

state, and is an integral party; that the Government created by this compact was not

made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;

since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of

its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no

common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions

as of the mode and measure of redress.35

This language is congruent with that of the Declaration of Independence, wherein Jefferson

stated, “ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing

rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute New Government…”36 The

people of the South had every right not to be taxed without representation and to stand up to

federal tyranny. The tariff was nothing but a redistribution scheme that transferred wealth from

Southern agrarians to Northern merchants while enriching the pockets of men like Lincoln who

were the beneficiaries of lobbyists. The institution of slavery, however, was an inimical practice and

needed to be abolished, but why did it take a war costing over 600,000 American lives to do so? The

interesting thing about slavery is that in several European countries the practice was slowly phased

out peacefully. In fact, the United States is the only country that fought a war during that epoch over

what most participants thought was the issue of slavery. When the facts are examined it becomes

evident that pecuniary factors were at the root of the war, and that slavery was used as a veneer to

gain support from the opposing Northern public. Joseph Smith, Jr. ran for U.S. president in 1844

just shortly before his martyrdom and he had a plan to end slavery peacefully by selling territories


30/286

and purchasing the freedom of slaves, which was something that had been done in other nations. He

said:

Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to

abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach

and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for

his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from

the deduction of pay from the members of Congress.37

In addition to the Civil War being an act of aggression on the part of the North, Lincoln

assumed dictatorial power not granted to federal government by the Constitution. Illegitimate

powers grabbed by the executive are an ominous threat to liberty — especially during times of war.

Most historians agree that Lincoln violated Constitutional limits, while at the same time honoring

him as a “benevolent dictator.” This myth has been dispelled by revisionist historian Thomas J.

DiLorenzo, who chronicles the abuses of Lincoln as follows:

Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in a

right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office, Lincoln implemented a series of

unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without

consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law;

blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the

duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern

citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him;

censoring all telegraph communication; nationalizing the railroads; creating several

new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering Federal

troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters;

deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for criticizing

the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally; confiscating

private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and

effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, among

other things.38

It is also important to remember — especially by Latter-day Saints — that the Lord approved the

Constitution in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, Jr. In this revelation, the Lord specifically


31/286

declared the He justified the brethren in “befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the

land; And as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less cometh of evil.”39 It therefore

logically follows that Lincoln was out of line with the Lord’s standard when he walked all over civil

liberties and Constitutional Rule of Law during the Civil War era. A war that was declared without

Congressional approval, something unprecedented up until Lincoln's time, but widely accepted

today as normal. More on Lincoln will be covered in subsequent chapters with regard to his

cornering the South into firing the first shot and the uncivilized and brutal warfare carried out by

Northern generals on Southern civilians.

Conclusion

In summation, we have established the Lord’s standard for defensiv e war. We have learned

through the example of the Nephites the precise conditions that need to exist before a just war canbe waged by a defending nation. We have also discussed the premise that America has engaged in

only two just wars since its inception and both have been wars of secession from a mother state,

which usurped authority. It is also appropriate to point out that the “dissenters” in the Book of

Mormon such as Amlici and Amalickiah desired to establish dictatorial regimes to overthrow the

freedom of the Nephites. The American “dissenters” during the Revolutionary and Civil War — or

more aptly named the War for Southern Independence — only desired to be left alone, and were therefore

justified in their collective actions of defiance against a corrupt central government. It is important

to distinguish between the two. The focus of our next chapter will be the conditions wherein waging

war is not justified and instead is sinful 'aggressive warfare'.

Chapter Two Notes and Sources

1. D&C 101:79

2. D&C 121:39, Emphasis added.

3. Alma 43:9

4. Alma 48:14

5. D&C 98:23-38

6. Alma 48:21

7. Alma 48:23

8. Alma, 56:46


32/286

9. Alma, 43:23

10. Numbers 31:11

11. Numbers 31:17

12. Alma 43:29

13. Alma 43:45-47

14. See Mosiah 29

15. The Nephite and Israelite system of judges constitutes the Lord’s ancient law of liberty. This law greatly

reduces the power of central governments and gives more self-governing power to localities. The American system of

states’ rights is based on this same principle and Thomas Jefferson actually studied the Biblical account of the Israelites

prior to the ratification of the Constitution. For a detailed study of the law of liberty see Cleon W. Skousen, The Majesty of

God’s Law .

16. Alma 2:7

17. Alma 2:28

18. Alma 43:8

19. Quite a difference from our modern day warfare where POWs are often tortured, executed, or incarcerated in

a concentration camp for years.

20. Alma 46:5

21. Alma 46:10, Emphasis added

22. Details on how Amalickiah orchestrated this regime change will discussed in a later chapter entitled, Amalickiah

and False Flag Operations

23. Glenn L. Pearson and Reid E. Bankhead, Building Faith With the Book of Mormon, copyright @ Joseph

Educational Foundation, 1994 Provo, UT, p. 112 Emphasis added.

24. D&C 134:5

25. 1 Nephi 13:14-19

26. Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, In Congress July 4, 1776

27. Col. Henry B. Carrington , Battles of the American Revolution , p. 39

28. An essay by Murray N. Rothbard, America’s Two Just Wa rs: 1776 and 1861, Mises Institute, 1994

29. “I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to

become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a

national bank… in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” -Abraham Lincoln, 1832, The

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Quoted in Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Abraham Lincoln and the Triumph of Mercantili sm. An

essay in Reassessing the Presidency, The Rise of the Executive State and the Delcline of Freedom, Edited by John V. Denson, Mises

Institute, 2001, p. 203

30. Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln the Man, p. 27

31. Mosiah 29:38

32. Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861

33. Ibid, Emphasis Added.

34. Ibid


33/286

35. St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States With Selected Writings , 1999, by Liberty Fund, Inc.

pp. 120-121

36. Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 30: 1 January 1798

to 31 January 1799, Princeton University Press, 2003, pp. 529,56

37. Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776

38. Joseph Smith, General Smith’s Views of the Pow ers and Policy of the Government of the United States , Nauvoo, Illinois,

Printed by John Taylor, 1844

39. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, e-book pp. 145-46

40. D&C Section 98:6-7, See Also Section 101:77-80


34/286

Chapter 3

Wars of Aggression are Revolts Against Christ

Blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.-Jesus Christ

When a nation launches an attack on another by military invasion, remote bombing, or naval

blockades, this constitutes a preemptive strike or attack, and is aggressive warfare. Taking it a step

further, we can deduce that even trade embargos and economic sanctions are acts of war because

they result in harm to innocent people who happen to be part of a particular state. The Book of

Mormon is very explicit in drawing the lines between defensive and preemptive attacks and gives

plenty of examples of each. As established before, during the righteous times of the Nephites under

Alma, Captain Moroni, and his son Moronihah, they only engaged in defensive war to stave off

attacks against their liberty. As the account progresses through Helaman and as the Nephites

become subject to a government controlled by secret combinations, the people devolve toward a

more aggressive foreign policy. We can find corollaries with the Book of Mormon account and our

own modern devolution toward an interventionist foreign policy, beginning when the Monroe

Doctrine of isolationism began to be subverted toward the end of the 1800s with the advent of the

Spanish-American War.

In the third chapter of 3 Nephi , we read an account of an epistle written to Lachoneus — theNephite governor — from Giddianhi — leader of the Gadianton robbers. In this epistle Giddianhi

made a direct threat of violence against the Nephites as follows:

Therefore I write unto you, desiring that ye would yield up unto this my

people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should

visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you. Or, in other

words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with

our secret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us — not ourslaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance.1 And behold, I swear

unto you, if ye will do this, with an oath, ye shall not be destroyed; but if ye will not

do this, I swear unto you with an oath, that on the morrow month I will command

that my armies shall come down against you, and they shall not stay their hand and


35/286

shall spare not, but shall slay you, and shall let fall the sword upon you even until ye

shall become extinct.2

There is no question or doubt that these Gadiantons were a clear and present danger to the

Nephites, and according to our modern standards it seems that a preemptive attack on the robbers

would have been justified to avoid being exterminated. However, as we read further into the chapter

we find that this is not the case. Although Lachoneus was the chief governor of the land, a man

named Gidgiddoni was a prophet and the chief captain of the armies of the Nephites, as it was their

custom to appoint a person who “had the spirit of revelation”3 to this position. The people,

apparently a little misled, said this unto the prophet Gidgiddoni:

Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the

wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.

But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against

them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves

in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not

go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the

Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.4

We can see here that the Lord’s standard of defensive war is holding true. True followers of

Christ do not engage in preemptive attacks even if their enemies are planning a potential strike, or as

in the above case, an imminent one. Instead of attacking the robbers in their own lands, which were

in the wilderness, the people followed the counsel of the chief governor and:

They did fortify themselves against their enemies, and they did dwell in one

land, and in one body, and they did fear the words which had been spoken by

Lachoneus, insomuch that they did repent of all their sins; and they did put up their

prayers unto the Lord their God, that he would deliver them in the time that their

enemies should come down against them to battle.5

It is interesting that the people had to repent and one has to ask just what did they have to

repent for? Perhaps they were repenting for their inclination toward preemptive war in asking the

prophet to pray to the Lord for permission to preemptively strike their enemies. Perhaps they should


36/286

have instead said to Gidgiddoni, “pray unto the Lord and ask him what we shall do to defend

ourselves.” Fortunately, the Nephites did repent and when the robbers came the next month they

were beaten and driven back into their own lands. What do we learn from this example? That true

Christians do not under any circumstances engage in preemptive war, and that even if there is an

imminent threat from an enemy then Christian protocol is to fortify the homeland and to prepare for

the time of attack. This is also evident from the example of Captain Moroni who was constantly

fortifying Nephite cities during their wars with the Lamanites.

Our next example comes in the third chapter of Mormon . Here, Mormon is describing the

military history of his people during a time of great wickedness. Mormon was the military

commander and also a prophet after the pattern of Gidgiddoni. When the Lord commands him to

cry repentance to the people he laments that, “it was in vain; and they did not realize that it was the

Lord that had spared them, and granted them a chance for repentance.”6

The next verse tells us thatthe king of the Lamanites sent Mormon an epistle declaring that the Lamanites were preparing to

come against them to battle. In the tradition of Gidgiddoni, Mormon gathered his people together

into one body in the land of Desolation (within Nephite borders). He says that “there [Desolation]

we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get

possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them will all our force.”7

The account then tells us that the Lamanites brought battle to the Nephites for two consecutive

years and were defeated both times by Mormon’s people. It is at this point that the Nephite people

begin to become prideful — boasting in their own strength and swearing vengeance upon their

enemies. Mormon relates:

And now, because of this great thing which my people had done, they began to

boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would

avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their

enemies. And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that

they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the

face of the land. And it came to pass that I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this

time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their

wickedness and abominations.”8

We see here that Mormon refused to lead his people in aggressive rather than defensive warfare

against the Lamanites. While many may deride him as a pacifist it is evident that Mormon


37/286

understood the Lord’s rules of defensive warfare. He admits that he had led his people to battle

many times despite their wickedness, had loved them, and had prayed for them. Three times he had

“delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, and they repented not of their sins.”9 The next

few verses reveal that the Lord takes the business of vengeance seriously:

And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord

and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and

avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren, behold the voice of the Lord

came unto me, saying: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay; and because this people

repented not after I had delivered them, behold, they shall be cut off from the face

of the earth.”10

The key to true defensive war doctrine lies in the principle teaching that vengeance belongs only

to the Lord. The Lord has said that we are commanded to forgive all men but He will forgive whom

He will forgive. We have no business making a judgment call on who should live and who should

die. In the author’s opinion, the Lord’s standard of condemning preemptive war is twofold;

vengeance belongs only to the Lord and there is always collateral damage in the form of innocents.

When Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, some 200,000 innocent Japanese

civilians died — including thirty schools full of children. In 1991, the UN sanctions on Iraq

prohibited medical supplies from entering the country resulting in the deaths of 500,000 children.Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in WWII as a result of allied bombings and 750,000

Germans starved to death during WWI because of Churchill’s hunger blockade. Millions more died

in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as a result of American intervention to annihilate the

“commi’s” and “terrorists” from the face of the earth. How are we any different than these

Nephites who Mormon refused to command? The plain truth is that we are not different, and if we

do not repent then we may meet the same fate as the Nephites and Jaredites whose failures to learn

the lessons of history are compiled in a record that is warning us from the dust. Mormon continues:

And it came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I

did even as the Lord commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest

unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of

the Spirit which had testified of things to come.”11


38/286

Mormon was keeping the commandments of God by not leading his men in an assault against

the Lamanites in their own lands. He was standing as an “idle witness” or an anti-war protestor as a

testimony against his people. Not surprisingly, we learn

Documents

War: A Book of Mormon Perspective